Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust • Hacker News Board

Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust

#81

Post by lazyant » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 9:38 PM UTC

tel wrote: post #65

joaorico wrote: post #17

One solution strategy that works very well from my experience is to ask them upfront whether they want to play "for real" or to play to learn. [edit: A third mode is "for (silly) fun" where everything is allowed.] This works for all ages... and for boardgames and physical games. It's their choice which mode they want to play in, and they trust and respect you more when given the choice. You treat them as a peer. You…

A common idea in Go is that a stronger player will play a "teaching game" with a weaker one. The game is sufficiently abstract and complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player who endeavors to play poorly so that they are only slightly better than their opponent and have the opportunity to share new ideas and tricks at a level appropriate to their student. Obviously, these hav…

> The game is sufficiently () complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player

I recommend to people learning to look at the activities of someone "good" at the field but not a star for this reason, I don't know if it applies to all fields but for ex I got the same feeling learning chess by following GM's games (I was lost) and a book like "Master vs Amateur" opened my eyes to typical errors made by intermediate players that won't show up in chess books (another example is "The Amateur Mind"). I tell soccer players than besides enjoying watching the games of the big teams and star players to watch "journeymen" games from a 2nd division to learn the basics.

Also the reason why we frequently learn more from a student mate explaining something that from a veteran teacher or professor, who forgot the struggles of the beginners.

Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust

#82

Post by nommm-nommm » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 10:06 PM UTC

kosma wrote: post #61

foobarian wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you get your kids started with board-game type games? I have a 3yro and we just have "silly fun" with dice but I'm trying to figure out how to show him the "move N places forward" mechanic where N is the number on the die.

Isn't 3yo a bit too early? I mean, at three years old a child is legally smart enough not to swallow the dice... but I thought knowing how to interpret numbers and apply them is a bit more advanced than knowing not to eat the numbery thing. ;)

Not at all. Candyland is recommended for children ages 3-6 and Chutes and Ladders 3-7. Both are good intros to the concept of board games.

Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust

#83

Post by throwaway729 » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 10:09 PM UTC

johnloeber wrote: post #15

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #3

Solution: play something that has essentially zero strategy, where who wins is close to random. Like Ludo or Yahtzee. My daughter often wins at Ludo, but it's not because I let her. She also often loses.

Ludo's fundamental, underlying lesson is that your actions don't matter at all. (The player has literally no agency in the game, it could be equivalently played by a RNG.) That doesn't seem like a good parenting lesson. A board game should be an opportunity to develop strategic thinking skills, rather than teaching the child that they're irrelevant.

> That doesn't seem like a good parenting lesson

Lots of things in life (good and bad) are pure luck. Handling things you "do/don't deserve" with appropriate emotional responses is a valuable life skill.

Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust

#84

Post by bkcooper » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

exhilaration wrote: post #76

senko wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We bought Orchard by Haba for our 2yo and she absolutely loved it, still plays it sometimes 2yrs later, and it motivated her interest in board games in general.

Thank you, I've never heard of this game but the Amazon reviews look great. Do you have any other board games recommendations for 3-5 year olds?

Matching memory games are something my daughter got into shortly before turning 4. We acquired a copy of Trouble from somebody and she likes that too.

Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust

#85

Post by marmaduke » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 10:24 PM UTC

kazagistar wrote: post #57

marmaduke wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

whoa, downboats! I meant, why does it require a scientific study to understand that lying to small children deforms their worldview?

Every time there is a scientific study, someone responds saying it has confirmed their worldview, and is therefore pointless, betraying a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of scientific studies.

amusing, I'm a scientist and a parent and yet I don't get it?

Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust

#86

Post by throwaway729 » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 10:31 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #69

alexandercrohde wrote: post #45

I have no idea how this made front-page. The title is inconsistent with the article title, and even the article title seems inflated to what it describes. As I understand it, the experimental group played a game they couldn't lose (rigged) and adults gave them "hints." The kids [correctly] identified that they weren't dependent on the adults' help in that group. However, there doesn't even seem to be a link to the ac…

If you or anyone can suggest a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral title), we can change it. The HN guidelines call for changing titles when they are either linkbait or misleading (and that's not an xor). https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Both the subtitle of the linked article and the published journal article's main title are: "Success inhibits preschoolers’ ability to establish selective trust".

The "establish selective trust" phrase is much more accurate than just "trust" -- in fact, the current title on HN in strictly incorrect. The preschoolers don't have problems trusting. Rather, you could argue that they're more trustworthy when they never lose. It's the "selective" part that's important. (That said, this feels a bit pedantic to me, and it seems as if no one is confused by the difference in wording.)

The "Let your kids lose:" prefix on the SD headline (and not in the peer reviewed publication) could cut either way -- it might be link bait, but it's also not inconsistent with the researchers' advice.

Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust

#87

Post by throwaway729 » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 10:39 PM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #58

stractract wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't see it. How on earth would a kid recognize unhelpful advice if it still resulted in finding the object? The kid does not know the game is rigged. I think it is more likely the article has not fully explained the experiment. It would make me sad to think this was actually published.

Say the advice is "look behind the couch in the living room" and the object is later found on the kitchen counter. And the rigging consists of the experimenter asking the kid to get something unrelated from the kitchen, for example. But yes, it's hard to determine whether this is how the experiment worked from the article. Unfortunately the actual paper at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096516.…

> Unfortunately the actual paper at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096516.... is paywalled in the usual way.

Searching for

    "title of article" PDF

is usually pretty effective (and is in this case ;-) ). In CS you'll find a PDF hosted on the author's home page like 99% percent of the time. Other fields are more spotty, but this approach is still pretty effective.

Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust

#88

Post by user837387 » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

cheald wrote: post #37

SeanDav wrote: post #29

I was taught chess at age 6 by a national level player. While I have no doubt he never had to try hard to beat me, he never let me win. I was a far better player as a result. While I never won, I was never discouraged, because he would always point out where I had made good plays and where I could have done better, in a very interactive manner. This has got to be one of the best ways to learn.

My dad, while never a national level player, taught me chess, and likewise never let me win. The day that I beat him for the first time was an enormous triumph for me, and I'm happily imparting that to my own kids now. My 8 year old hadn't beat me yet, but his game has developed rapidly and that first win isn't very far off now. I'll offer him advice and help him understand why a given move was good or bad, but his m…

I do not understand how can he beat you if you started playing as a kid. Granted, I don't know what I'm talking about but unless you are going senile I don't see how he can beat you while he's still a kid.

Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust

#89

Post by marwatk » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 11:03 PM UTC

foobarian wrote: post #47

joaorico wrote: post #17

One solution strategy that works very well from my experience is to ask them upfront whether they want to play "for real" or to play to learn. [edit: A third mode is "for (silly) fun" where everything is allowed.] This works for all ages... and for boardgames and physical games. It's their choice which mode they want to play in, and they trust and respect you more when given the choice. You treat them as a peer. You…

How did you get your kids started with board-game type games? I have a 3yro and we just have "silly fun" with dice but I'm trying to figure out how to show him the "move N places forward" mechanic where N is the number on the die.

While not a dice game, my daughter really loved Sequence for Kids when she was 3. She was able to follow the rules and learn to play.

https://smile.amazon.com/Jax-8001-Sequence-for-Kids/dp/B0000...

Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust

#90

Post by Nomentatus » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 11:13 PM UTC

lazyant wrote: post #81

tel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common idea in Go is that a stronger player will play a "teaching game" with a weaker one. The game is sufficiently abstract and complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player who endeavors to play poorly so that they are only slightly better than their opponent and have the opportunity to share new ideas and tricks at a level appropriate to their student. Obviously, these hav…

> The game is sufficiently () complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player I recommend to people learning to look at the activities of someone "good" at the field but not a star for this reason, I don't know if it applies to all fields but for ex I got the same feeling learning chess by following GM's games (I was lost) and a book like "Master vs Amateur" opened my eyes to typ…

Which is why Napoleon favored generals who had the reputation of being consistently "lucky" - i.e., those whose excellence wasn't easily understood.